This blog has been created with an intention to facilitate my fellow employees (including myself) to get parity in pay aspects. I welcome contribution from visitors in the form of judgements of various forums. I will upload the judgements after verification for everyone to see and get benefitted. They can give the links of judgements by way of comments on the posts appearing on the homepage.
FINAL HEARING IS OVER ON 3.11.2015

Saturday, February 19, 2011

After 6th Pay Commission, in the name of creating equality the posts from 5000 to 6500 basic were merged into one and were granted 4200 Grade Pay. On 13.11.2009, 6500 scale persons were given 4600 grade pay.

In many field offices, because of the above, the feeder and promo posts (5000 basic & 5500) respectively remained on same Grade pay of Rs.4200. It is heard in some of the offices, the promotion earned from 5000 to 5500 has been nullified and both the scales have been merged with grant of 4200 Grade pay (Heard that in Railways in Office Ministerial line). But, we see the situation of overlapping of same grade pay of Rs.4200 (as seen in Anamoly Committee Minutes of AIRF site, some technical posts still remain on same grade pay) and Railways have requested for grant of atleast 3% increment on promotion from feeder to Promo cadre having same grade pay. Here, comes the problem.

Now in the old 5000 scale (having 4200 grade pay), if a person gets ACP/MACP, being an alternative/substitute (temporary relief), that itself is able to grant financial benefit of 3% increment + Next Grade pay of 4600 grade pay (without changing the designation). ACP/MACP is not a permanent solution/remedy but that itself is able to grant the benefits mentioned above.

But, when a person (having 4200 grade pay) gets promoted from 5000 scale to 5500 scale, is not given any financial benefit (but here the designation changes and he is vested with more higher responsibilities). In what way it is correct.

As per pay Rules, the minimum benefit on promotion should be Rs.100/- (as per last pay commission) and now 3% increment + Grade pay applicable to promotion post should be given. Since Grade pay remains same for feeder and promo post, no benefit is given But higher responsibilities are given.

In this regard, the latest order of DOPT (also mentioned in Gconnect) which reads under:-

The Department of Personnel and Training (DOP&T), has reiterated that the grant of the benefits under the earlier ACP Scheme or the MACP Scheme is a fall back option in the event of promotions not taking place. It has been impressed that the Cadre structure needs to be reviewed periodically to harmonise the functional needs of the organisation and career progression of employees.

Therefore, the Ministry has advised all the concerned Departments to review the cadre structure in a time bound manner with a view to mitigate problem of stagnation.

In some departments (take for example Central Excise) where a feeder cadre has two different lines of promotion. Senior Tax Assistant (4200 grade pay) can be promoted to a post of Dy. Office Supdt. (4200 grade pay - remains unchanged) as well as to the post of Inspector (4600 grade pay). If he opts for promotion as Dy. Office Supdt, no benefit but for Inspector post 4600 grade pay is given (because of order dt.16.11.2009 granting 4600 grade pay).

Restructuring cadre (review) is going on in Central Excise. But, in this exercise also (as per proposal under finalisation), the post of Dy. Office Supdt. (being one of the Promotion post for STA) is still allowed to remain on 4200 grade pay.

There may be many departments like this in our country, I think. As a last resort, quoting the provision of Pay Rules, such department people should resort to legal remedy (if admn. action is not favourable).

I also seek the opinion of esteemed boarders whether such legal action will work out favourably (by quoting the provisions/orders already existing in the books, pay rules, etc.).
Ramnath

Friday, February 4, 2011

The Central Governmental Employees working in different field offices throughout India are totally upset and the Department of Personnel and Training is slowly grabbing the government decisions and attempting to create two kinds of citizens by implementing the same Fundamental Rules (FR) in different ways for Central Secretariat and field office. Some of the serious discrimination and anomalies are brought to notice as under:

1. The DOPT vide OM No.AB.14017/61/2008-Estt(RR) dated 24th March, 2009 directed all the Ministries and Departments to amend the existing Service Rules/recruitment rules within six months in view of the 6th pay commission recommendations and it’s government decisions. Whereas this has been done only for the employees working in the Central Secretariat and discriminated the field offices.
2. The Govt. of India constituted National Anomaly Committees at the National level w.e.f. 12.th January, 2009 in order to settle the anomalies arising out of the implementation of 6th cpc in more than one Ministry/Department/field offices. Whereas only two meetings were held so far ie., 12.12.2009 and 27.3.2010 and the serious anomalies of field offices were not at all discussed in these two meetings. Further, the Govt. of India on 12.12.2009 itself issued orders to constitute separate Departmental Anomaly Committees for field level organizations and subordinate offices whereas no such anomaly committees were constituted so far . Whereas frequent monthly anomaly committee meetings are taking place for the employees of the Central Secretariat and their anomalies are being sorted by fixing pay at the minimum of the higher scale, granting higher grade pay, timely promotions or even ad hoc promotions and creation of posts to accommodate where there are no posts for promotion. These similar genuine benefits are forbidden for the employees of field offices. Now there is no Departmental anomaly committee for field organizations and there is no meetings and no reviews etc.

3. The examples of the attempt of keeping the citizens in two levels are (1) the employees those who were drawing the same scale of pay in the Central Secretariat and in the field offices are fixed at different level when there is only one FR and thereby the employees of the field offices drawing same scale of pay are getting less pay of Rs.3000 to 4000 in the basic pay itself every month and the seniors are getting very less than their juniors and junior most. 2) For the Central Secretariat employees, the pay of seniors were stepped up at par with their junior most whereas in the field offices, these stepping up are not allowed so far. 3) The employees who were promoted after 1.1.2006 in the Central Secretariat in different cadres were fixed at the minimum of the pre-revised and multiplied by 1.86 whereas for the field offices, this fixation at the minimum was not extended.

4. Another example of serious anomaly or discrimination is that “an employee who was drawing scale of Rs. 4000-6000 in the Central Secretariat on promotion as Assistant w.e.f. 2.1.2006 in the pre-revised scale of 5500-9000 were given fixation such as 7450x1.86+GP4600 . Whereas this is not allowed to field office. Further an employee who was drawing scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 prior to 1.1.2006 were denied fixation in 7450x1.86+4600 and he/she was allowed only 5500x1.86+4200 . This is a clear cut example of creating two type of citizens though both of them were drawing same scale of pay. These are only skeleton examples and like this there are many serious anomalies in the field offices.

In view of the above, we request the members of NAC to kindly take up this serious issue and discuss same in the NEXT NATIONAL ANOMALY COMMITTEE SCHEDULED TO BE HELD on 15th February, 2011 in order to apply the Fundamental Rules and CCS(R.P)Rules, 2008 uniformly.

The anomalies indicated are serious and needs due consideration. I sincerly hope that staff side takes up the matter vigorously and forcefully at the next NAC meeting so that uniformity in rules and regulations is restored.

Victor

Comments of Mr.Sundarar

Mother of all Anomalies

Originally Posted by Victor

The anomalies indicated are serious and needs due consideration. I sincerly hope that staff side takes up the matter vigorously and forcefully at the next NAC meeting so that uniformity in rules and regulations is restored.

Victor

The fundamental question involved in r/o all anomalies referred to above, is whether there exists a Minimum Pay in the running Pay Band or otherwise. If exists as per definition provided under CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 then the Rule 13 of CCS (RP) Rules 2008 relating to fixation of pay on promotion needs to be amended suitably to replace the terminology - minimum of the pay band - by `minimum of the pay in the running pay band' therein. In fact, the present Rule 13 is applicable only for a promotee from one pay band to another pay band, and mostly applicable promotees to PB4 in view of the enhanced minimum of the pay band beyond 1.86 mf aspect. (Similar situation in the case of pensioners also exists wherein the revision of pension under para 4.1 of OM dated 1.9.2008 is beneficial only for PB-1 to PB-3 in view of modified para 4.2 and for PB 4, the original para 4.2 ought to take care, but unfortunately the said modified para 4.2 brought reducing impact)

In one of the Circular issued by RB, it is indicated that `Sixth CPC has not prescribed minimum pay in the pay band for the purpose of fixation of pay on promotion in the case of any grade and, fixing of minimum pay in the pay band in the case of each grade pay for departmental promotees would defeat the very purpose of introduction of running pay band'.

Whereas, without correlating with the lowest stage of the pre-revised scale, a corresponding running pay band cannot start its journey. On promotion to a higher grade, pay would have been fixed at the lowest stage of pre-revised scale of the said higher grade till 31.12.2005 and even till implementation of 6th CPC recommendation. On implementation, the promotional fitment benefit got reduced to that of financial upgradation under ACP, according to me. In both the cases, while GP applicable to the higher grade is granted - the running pay in the pay band after adding the benefit of 3% of revised pay with it, if happens to be lesser than a running pay in the pay band applicable to lowest stage of the pre-revised scale of the promoted grade, it can be stepped upto minimum of the pay band, only in the case of promotion. As we had seen so far, a minimum of the pay band can also plays the role of minimum of the running pay in the pay band only in respect of 4 pre-revised scales corresponding to minimum of PB1, 2, 3, and 4. There are many intermittent pre-revised scales within a particular pay band and when promotional benefits are granted, the same are more or less similar to that of ACP benefits, according to me. Our forum members may please clarify this aspect with their valuable inputs.

For want of minimum pay in the pay band just because the same is not specifically prescribed by the 6th CPC owing to the fact that it is nothing but corresponding to lowest stage of the pre-revised scale that is very much derivable, the due promotional benefits can not be fixed at a stage lower than the minimum of the pay in the pay band, ie. below the lowest stage of the pre-revised scale of the higher post in the revised structure.

The question is, whether a minimum pay in the pay band is required to be prescribed specifically by a Pay Commission under the given situation. The manner and methodology of interpretation during implementation, led to several reducing impacts in respect of promotees to higher grades, higher scale holders owing to merger as well as upgradation, pensioners for the purpose of deriving minimum revised pension, etc.

It is quite significant to note that the Dept. of Expenditure, vide their U.O. dated 14.12.2009 to DOPT while clarifying, have gone on record that `since the minimum pay in the pay band in the revised structure corresponding to the stage of Rs.5500 (pre-revised scale of Rs.5500-9000), is more than the minimum of the pay band PB-2(ie.) Rs.9300/- no benefit of bunching is admissible in this case'.

It is also said in the same U.O. Note that `6th CPC has not prescribed a minimum pay in the running pay band w.r.t. minimum entry level pay prescribed for direct recruits appointed on or after 1.1.2006'.

Further, stepping up of pay on par with a MACP holder, is not prescribed anywhere in the CCS(RP) Rules, 2008. The related Notes No.7 and 10 under Rule 7 of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 need further clarification, as to whether a person is required to be drawing more pay in the lower grade too than his junior - is not very clear in the case of Note No.7. Though the stepping up done through DOPT OM dated 7.1.2011 refers to Rule 10, it is given to understand that the junior official indicated in the said OM appears to be drawing more pay in the lower grade than the seniors whose pay have been stepped up. But, as said earlier, these seniors could be eligible to get what has been fixed w.e.f. 2.1.2006 from 1.1.2006 provided the minimum pay in the running pay band is ensured in all cases of promotion, replaced/upgraded/merged scales on or after 1.1.2006. To that extent,
a clear cut decision with regard to the terminology - MINIMUM PAY IN THE RUNNING PAY BAND -WHICH IS NOTHING BUT BOTTOM OF THE PRE-REVISED SCALE (BE IT REPLACED/PROMOTED/MERGED/UPGRADED SCALE) X 1.86) and its applicability, is inevitable.

Another very serious anomaly, according to me, is application of varying multiplication factor. All pre-revised pay shall have a uniform multiplication factor, and the purpose of introduction of pay band concepts is only to provide enhanced multiplication factor to scales above S-23. Need for parity among all employees irrespective of the pre-revised scales they were holding till 1.1.2006, is not taken note of by the serving community. That is the mother of all injustices and anomalies that followed.

It is hoped that the NAC will give its final verdict duly taking care of all the discussions that are being recorded in various public forums which are otherwise the feedback on implementation of 6th CPC recommendation and bring appropriate remedial measures to settle the problems once for all without pushing towards judicial remedy.